Dontel Spraglin v. State of Arkansas

2023 Ark. App. 454

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: October 18, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 454 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-23-64

DONTEL SPRAGLIN Opinion Delivered October 18, 2023 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 35CR-17-449] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

Appellant, Dontel Spraglin, appeals the revocation of his probation. Spraglin argues

that the circuit court committed reversible error by denying him the right to examine the

confidential informant at the revocation hearing in violation of his rights under the

Confrontation Clause. We affirm.

Spraglin was on a three-year probationary term commencing in June 2020 for

admitting to possession of methamphetamine. Contemporaneous with his guilty plea and

acceptance of probation, Spraglin agreed to written conditions of his probation. In October

2020 and September 2022, the State file petitions to revoke Spraglin’s probation. The

alleged violations included multiple positive drug-test results over five months of testing

(THC, opiates, PCP, amphetamines, methamphetamine, and cocaine), committing new

drug-related offenses in August 2020, and being delinquent in his court-ordered payments. After several continuances, the revocation hearing was conducted in November 2022.

Testimony was presented to show that Spraglin was delinquent in his fees and that he tested

positive several times for illegal substances. The State also brought a Pine Bluff narcotics

detective to testify about a drug buy between a confidential informant and Spraglin in August

2020. During the detective’s testimony, defense counsel argued that Spraglin’s right to

confrontation was being violated because the confidential informant was not present to

testify. The objection was overruled. A search was conducted of Spraglin’s residence, where

officers found synthetic marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy pills, regular marijuana, and a loaded

handgun, all on a coffee table or floor near Spraglin, who was sitting on the couch. Spraglin

had $350 in his pants pocket. Spraglin made general denials about the drugs and gun found

in his residence. Spraglin admitted in his testimony, however, that if he were drug tested

that day, he would test positive for marijuana, although he claimed he could stop using drugs

any time he wanted.

The circuit court found that Spraglin was in violation of the terms of his probation,

notably having just admitted on the stand that he would test positive for marijuana. The

circuit court revoked his probation and sentenced him to six years in prison for the

underlying drug crime. This appeal followed.

To revoke probation, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of the evidence

that the defendant has inexcusably violated a condition of the probation or suspension.

Springs v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 364, 525 S.W.3d 490. The State does not have to prove every

2 allegation in its petition, and proof of only one violation is sufficient to sustain a revocation.

Mathis v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 49, 616 S.W.3d 274. On appellate review, we uphold the

circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

English v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 219, 622 S.W.3d 649.

Spraglin’s sole argument on appeal is that the circuit court violated his rights under

the Confrontation Clause. That objection related solely to the confidential informant and

his identification of Spraglin in the controlled drug buy in August 2020. We, however, need

not reach that issue because there was an independent, alternative basis on which the circuit

court revoked Spraglin’s probation. There was ample unrefuted evidence that Spraglin

tested positive for a multitude of illegal drugs during probation, and Spraglin himself

admitted on the stand that he would test positive that day for marijuana, which clearly

violated the terms of his probation. When a circuit court bases its decision on multiple

independent grounds and an appellant challenges only one of those grounds on appeal, we

can affirm without addressing the merits of the argument. See English, supra.

Affirmed.

HARRISON, C.J., and BROWN, J., agree.

Robinson, Zakrzewski & Taylor, P.A., by: Luke Zakrzewski, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.